Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Keisha Omilana

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Keisha Omilana

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The are only a few reputable sources referenced on this article and even those don't provide any significant or reliable coverage. It doesn’t seem that notability is verifiable considering the basis is simply that the subject married a prince of a certain town. And the wiki for the town linked by the article conflicts with that and at best only proves that the man she married may be related to someone who was the king of that town roughly half a millennia ago. MVaughnn (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.